Student-Administration Dialogue on the War in Vietnam

On December 30, 100 student leaders sent a letter to President Johnson reporting the dissatisfaction of many students with the Government's policy in Vietnam. They received a reply from Secretary of State Dean Rusk on January 4. The two letters are reprinted here.

The student letter which was signed by student body presidents and newspaper editors from colleges across the country, was reported on the front page of the New York Times and excited great interest within the Administration.

Secretary Rusk, according to officials in the State Department, regarded the letter as "serious and thoughtful." In his reply, he invited representatives of the student leaders to meet with him and discuss the questions at greater length. The students accepted the proposal, and will meet with Rusk tomorrow.

The student leaders today made public their reply to the Rusk letter appearing here. This second student letter was not printed here because it was made available only to the New York Times.

The original letter was first suggested during the debate at the annual congress of the National Student Association last year. The student leaders hoped to open a middle, moderate course of criticism of Administration policy in Vietnam.

The signers, who insisted that they were participating as individuals, not as representatives of student organizations, included two students from Harvard and Radcliffe: Gregory B. Craig '67, Chairman of the Harvard Undergraduate Council, and Susanne Wilson, President of the Radcliffe Government Association.

In your talk to the student interns last summer, as on other occasions, you have recognized and discussed problems that have been troubling members of our generation. We have been grateful for your concern and encouraged by your invitation to express some of our thoughts.

Since many of these thoughts center increasingly on the situation in Vietnam, the New Year's renewal of the truce seems a suitable occasion to report to you that significant and growing numbers of our contemporaries are deeply troubled about the posture of their government in Vietnam. We believe the state of mind of these people, although largely unreported, is of great importance, because there are many who are deeply troubled for every one who has been outspoken in dissent.

A great many of those faced with the prospect of military duty find it hard to square performance of that duty with concepts of personal integrity and conscience. Even more are torn by reluctance to participate in a war whose toll in property and life keeps escalating, but about whose purpose and value to the United States they remain unclear.

The truces have highlighted a growing conviction on American campuses that if our objective in the fighting in Vietnam is a negotiated settlement rather than a military "victory," continued escalation cannot be justified by the failure of the other side to negotiate.

If, on the other hand, our objective is no longer a negotiated settlement, the nature and attainability of our objectives in Vietnam raise serious new doubts. There is thus increasing confusion about both our basic purpose and our tactics, and there is increasing fear that the course now being pursued may lead us irrevocably into a major land war in Asia -- a war which many feel could not be won without recourse to nuclear weapons, if then.

In this context there is widsepread support for the suggestion of the Pope and others that the resumed truce be extended de facto by restraint on both sides, even if no formal agreement is reached. And there is hope that if fighting must be resumed in 1967 it will be resumed on a reduced scale.

In short, Mr. President, a great many of our contemporaries, raised in the democratic tradition of thinking for themselves, are finding a growing conflict between their own observation on the one hand, and statements by Administration leaders about the war on the other. These are people as devoted to the Constitution, to the democratic process, and to law and order as were both their fathers and brothers who served willingly in two World Wars and in Korea.

Unless this conflict can be eased, the United States will find some of her most loyal young people choosing to go to jail rather than to bear the country's arms, while countless others condone or even utilize techniques for evading their legal obligations. Contributing to this situation is the almost universal conviction that the present Selective Service law operates unfairly.

We write in the hope that this letter will encourage a frank discussion of these problems. If such a discussion clarified American objectives in Vietnam, it might help reverse the drift, which is now from confusion toward disaffection. To this end, we submit for your consideration some of the questions now agitating the academic community:

There is doubt that America's vital interests are sufficiently threatened in Vietnam to necessitate the growing commitment there.

There is doubt that such vital interests as may be threatened are best protected by this growing commitment.

There is doubt that a war which may devastate much of the countryside can lead to the stable and prosperous Vietnam we once hoped our presence would help create.

There is considerable concern about apparent contradictions in the American position on certain points basic to any efforts to negotiate a settlement. High Government officials reiterate our eagerness to negotiate "unconditionally," but we remain unclear about our willingness to accept full participation by the Vietcong as an independent party to negotiations.

Similarly, Administration spokesmen reiterate our commitment to self-determination for South Vietnam, but we remain unclear about our willingness to accept a coalition (or pro-Communist) government should the people of South Vietnam eventually choose such a government under adequate international supervision.

Finally, Mr. President, we must report a growing sense -- reinforced by Mr. Harrison Salisbury's recent reports from Hanoi -- that too often there is a wide disparity between American statements about Vietnam and American actions there.

We hope you will find it possible to share your thoughts with us about these matters. The rising confusion about national purpose can undermine mutual trust and respect among our people. This seems to us as urgent a problem as any that confronts the nation today.

We are grateful for your interest and send our best wishes for the New Year